Climate and energy

Nancy Jackson, CEP Executive Director

We expect a great deal of our elected representatives. These good Kansans give their time and energy to serve our state and are expected to become instant experts on a very wide variety of topics and policy matters. We should all have tremendous sympathy with that position.

The Climate & Energy Project, in contrast, has the luxury of a tight focus and a lot of research. Since the climate and energy matters being debated today –and the laws that result from that debate – will affect future generations of Kansas (including our own children!), we feel a duty to weigh in.

In that spirit, a few items from yesterday’s discussion on the House floor merit attention.

First, let it be known that Kansas wind does not rank behind California and Maine, as was stated yesterday.
California and Maine rank #17 and #19, respectively, while Kansas is lucky to have the #3 wind resource in the nation, behind #1 Texas and #2 North Dakota.

Texas leads the nation with 4,356 megawatts of installed capacity of wind power and 942 megawatts under construction. (Compare that to under 1,000 MW installed in Kansas.)

Texas policies include Competitive Renewable Energy Zones (CREZs), a Renewable Portfolio Standard, and aggressive net metering. Those policies have really paid off, leading to tremendous and sustained economic development in rural Texas.

Second, it was asserted on the floor yesterday that Karl Brooks and Johannes Feddema, attorney and climatologist, respectively, who testified before House Energy & Utilities “made unequivocal statements that in the scientific world and legal world, there is debate about climate change.”

In fact, when questioned directly on this topic, as related in CEP’s live blog, Brooks answered, “with regard to climate change, respectfully, lawyers do not dispute climate change. It is happening, and human actions are involved.” (For Brooks’ written testimony, click here.)

Feddema’s written testimony from the House record says that if anything, “our models may in fact be under-predicting the rate of climate change.” He goes on to say, on the basis of his analysis of all 23 global climate models and the tremendous amount of empirical data they contain: “In conclusion I find that the impacts of global warming are very likely to have a significant impact on the people and environment of Kansas, and that it is wise for us to plan accordingly, in terms of the consumption of our resources and possible measures to reduce the impact of climate change in the future.” (For CEP live blogging of Feddema testimony and his exchanges with representatives, check here.)

Finally, the IPCC reports are not “outdated,” as one representative claimed. In fact, the IPCC reports have been contributed to and reviewed by literally thousands of the world’s leading scientists, and that work continues. Another report is expected soon. These are the most heavily peer-reviewed articles in the history of scholarship.

Add to them this statement from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, our most prestigious scientific body: “In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere…How climate will change in the future is inherently uncertain, but far from unknown. If scientific uncertainty about climate change is used to delay action, the risks and costs of adverse effects on climate change could increase significantly.” (cite, pdf)

Or this one, by The Geological Society of America, established in 1888, with over 20,500 members: “The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate change will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning.” (citation)

There are skeptics, for sure. But at this point, they are dramatically in the minority. The tide has turned on this one. And truly, the weight of scientific evidence says that climate change is happening and humans are largely causing it.

That –and now we are getting into CEP editorial territory—is the good news, folks. If we are in the driver’s seat on this one, then we have the opportunity to steer away from the cliff!

And, according to numerous studies (Lehman Brothers, McKinsey, ACEEE, EPA), we can do so at modest expense – and often at cost savings or even a profit (Kansas wind, anyone?).

So perhaps the possibility we should be considering is: what happens if we ignore the risks of climate change, the risks that so many have warned us about? What if we can avert the worst case scenarios by making excellent, informed policy decisions today – decisions that also make the most of new opportunities, support economic growth, and above all, minimize our risk?

CEP believes we can. We trust that our elected representatives will soon (and increasingly) turn to finding just such solutions, for Kansas and beyond.

— Nancy Jackson, www.climateandenergy.org